Supreme Court halts demolitions in Assam, issues notice to state govt on contempt plea

The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the Assam Government’s demolition drive in Sonapur after a group of residents alleged that the state authorities were acting in violation of the court’s September 17 order that said no demolition could take place without its prior permission.

While issuing contempt notice to the state government, a Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan directed the parties to maintain status quo.

The petitioners — Faruk Ahmed and others – alleged that the local authorities marked their homes for demolition without any prior notice and in violation of the top court’s order.

Amid bulldozer action against alleged illegal houses and shops of offenders in BJP-ruled states, the Supreme Court had on September 17 ordered that no demolition of properties of persons accused of crimes could take place without its prior permission.

The Bench had, however, clarified that the order won’t apply to encroachments on public roads, footpaths, railway lines and water bodies.

“Till next date, there shall be no demolitions without seeking leave of this court. However, the order would not be applicable to unauthorised constructions on public streets, footpaths, abutting railway lines or public spaces,” the Bench had said in an interim order and posted the matter for further hearing on October 1.

“Even if there’s one instance of illegal demolition, it’s against ethos of the Constitution,” it had said, invoking its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution (that empowers it to pass any orders to do complete justice) to halt ‘bulldozer justice’.

Monday’s order came after senior counsel Huzefa Ahmadi submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they had been living in the area for years under a power of attorney from the original landowners and the state authorities were removing them in violation of the top court’s September 17 order.

In violation of top court’S order

Monday’s order came after senior counsel Huzefa Ahmadi submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they had been living in the area for years under a power of attorney from the original landowners and the state authorities were removing them in violation of the top court’s September 17 order